tackling the cell wall of the grape berry

172 The Biochemistry of the Grape Berry, 2012, 172-193

Hernâni Gerós, M. Manuela Chaves and Serge Delrot (Eds)

All rights reserved - © 2012 Bentham Science Publishers

CHAPTER 9

Tackling the Cell Wall of the Grape Berry

L. F. Goulao1, J. C. Fernandes

2, P. Lopes

2 and S. Amâncio

2,*

1Centro de Ecofisiologia, Bioquímica e Biotecnologia Vegetal, Instituto de Investigação Científica Tropical, IP,

Quinta do Marquês, Av. da República 2784-505 Oeiras, Portugal and 2Centro de Botânica Aplicada à

Agricultura (CBAA)/ DRAT, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, UTL, Tapada da Ajuda 1349-017 Lisboa,

Portugal

Abstract: The cell wall (CW) is the dynamic border of plant cells. In grape berries, the CW decisively

accounts for the difference between the pulp and skin cells, with direct consequences on the grape

characteristics, wine quality and wine-making methods. The softening of mature berries results from the de-

polymerisation and solubilisation of CW polymers. Modifications of grape pulp and skin CW provide the

flexibility for cell expansion during fruit growth and to modulate the final texture. Wine making and berry

processing methods are directly related with the absence, in white wines, or the presence, in red wines, of

skin CW in the fermenting must. Anthocyanin extraction depends directly on skin yielding of the pigment

upon CW degradation. During fruit growth and ripening, the cooperative action between different enzyme

families is capital in CW metabolism. The sequencing and public availability of the Vitis genome allowed us

to focus on individual pathways, to profile the expression pattern of isoforms associated with each tissue,

developmental phase or stress response, anticipating the effects on berry (and wine) production and quality.

Retrieving the sequences of genomic coding regions and the predicted enzymes that act on the Vitis, CW

allows us for the first time to tackle the grape berry Cell Wallome.

Keywords: Cell wall enzymes, Cellulose, Glycoproteins, Hemicelluloses, Lignin, Microfibrils, Pectins,

Phenolic compounds, Polysaccharides, Primary cell wall, Secondary cell wall, Wallome, Xyloglucans.

INTRODUCTION

The plant cell wall (CW) is a complex macromolecular structure that surrounds and protects the cell.

Functions of the primary wall include plant structural and mechanical support, determination and

maintenance of cell shape, resistance to internal turgor pressure of the cell, control over growth at a precise

rate and direction, regulation of diffusion through the apoplast, and protection against pathogens,

dehydration and environmental factors [1]. Thus, the CW is an important source of biologically active

signalling molecules, regulating cell-to-cell interactions and also a carbohydrate storage reserve.

Remodelling of the fruit CW is mandatory to provide the flexibility required for cell expansion during fruit

growth and to modulate final texture attributes which, together with flavour and aroma, render the fruit

attractive to a variety of seed-dispersing organisms [2]. Therefore modifications of the wall polymers must

be fine-tuned to regulate the CW dynamics needed to accommodate growth and ripening.

The nutraceutical effect of wine, grape and grape derivatives is commonly associated with the antioxidant

properties of the phenolic species they contain [3, 4]. The colour, astringency and antioxidant properties of

wines, in particular of red wines, can be assigned to phenolic acids, to simple flavonoids like anthocyanins

or to condensed flavonoids as proanthocyanidins (PA) and tannins [3, 5]. These phenolic compounds can be

solubilised into the vacuole or linked to the CW polysaccharides. Hence, the CW of grape berry skin cells

is also of main relevance to winemaking and other grapevine processing methods, since it forms a

hydrophobic barrier to the diffusion of phenols, holding the main control of extractability [6].

The release of the Vitis genome [7, 8] hastens omics-related research. Profiling the expression patterns of

genes associated with Vitis berry CW during growth, development and in response to abiotic and biotic

stresses provides the understanding of CW impact on grape and wine production and quality.

*Address correspondence to S. Amâncio: Centro de Botânica Aplicada à Agricultura (CBAA)/ DRAT, Instituto Superior de

Agronomia, UTL, Tapada da Ajuda 1349-017 Lisboa, Portugal; E-mial: author: [email protected]

Tackling the Cell Wall of the Grape Berry The Biochemistry of the Grape Berry 173

THE PLANT CELL WALL STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION

Primary Cell Wall

The primary CW of dicotyledonous and non-commelinoid monocot species (Type-I cell walls, according to

Carpita and Gibeaut [9]) is composed of approximately 90% polysaccharides [10] from three major classes

that form its structural elements: cellulose, matrix cross-linking glycans (henceforth referred to as

hemicelluloses) and pectic polysaccharides, which, in fruits, represent about 35%, 15% and 40% of the CW

mass, respectively [1]. Structural glycoproteins, phenolic esters, minerals, and enzymes are also present,

directing modifications on its physical and chemical properties.

Cellulose is a linear polysaccharide consisting of long unbranched -1,4-linked cellobiose chains. It forms a

crystalline or semi-crystalline microfiber phase, via extensive hydrogen bonding between individual strands

(microfibrils) that, winded together, provide most of the tensile strength to the plant cell matrix and forms

the framework around which the other components are positioned. Cellulose microfibrils are embedded in a

matrix phase consisting of hemicelluloses and pectic polysaccharides.

Hemicelluloses are cross-linking glycans that can interact non-covalently trough hydrogen-bonds to

cellulose microfibrils, having the capacity to coat and tether them together to form an extensive framework.

Hemicelluloses consist of polysaccharides with a backbone of 1,4- linking -D-pyranosyl residues in which

O-4 is in the equatorial orientation. They differ from cellulose due to its substitution with other sugars,

which results in considerable variation in their composition and structure.

Xyloglucans (XGs) are the predominant hemicelluloses in the dicot primary CW, representing 15-25% [9].

Non-Solanaceae Type-I CW XGs are composed of repeating heptasaccharide units to which variable amounts

of sugar residues are added during synthesis up to about 75% of the -1,4-D-Glcp backbone residues [11],

resulting in a family with large heterogeneity. Short side chains holding xylose-containing mono- (xylose), di-

(xylose-galactose) or tri- (xylose-galactose-fucose) saccharides are linked by !-1,6 bonds at regular sites to the

O-6 position of the glucose units of the linear backbone of XG. XGs occur at distinct locations in the wall,

either binding tightly to portions of exposed faces of glucan chains in the cellulose microfibrils, or spanning the

distance between adjacent microfibrils to lock them into place. Recently, XGs and xylans have been localised to

cell junctions in ripening fruits, suggesting a role of hemicelluloses in cell adhesion [12], which was previously

attributed to pectic homogalacturonans (see below).

Other hemicelluloses include mannans (a -1,4-mannose backbone, with or without galactose linked by an

!-1,6 bond), including glucomannans, galactomannans and galactoglucomannans, and xylans (a backbone

of -1,4-linked xylosyl residues, substituted by -linked 4-O-methylglucuronic acid and by acetyl esters on

C2, and !-linked arabinose on C2 or C3) of some xylosyl residues, forming arabinoxylans, glucuronoxylans

and glucuronoarabinoxylans.

Pectins are embedded within the cellulose/hemicellulose network, forming hydrophilic gels that impose

mechanical features to the wall, such as regulation of the hydration status and ion transport, definition of

the porosity and stiffness which, in this way, determines the water holding capacity, controls the

permeability of the wall for enzymes and provides additional strength to the matrix. Molar mass, neutral

sugar content, proportions of smooth and hairy regions, ferulic acid substitution, amounts of methoxyl and

acetyl esters and distribution of ester groups on the polymer characteristically define its fine structure

which, in turn, determines functional properties of micro-domains, such as surface charge, pH and ion

balance and establishes the biological roles within the CW. Pectins are complex, structurally heterogeneous

acidic polysaccharides composed of a range of 1,4-linked !-D-galactosyluronic acid (GalpA) residue-

containing linear chains, assembled with a range of modifications and substitutions with variable degrees of

ramifications by single sugars or complex side chains [13]. Structural classes of pectins include

homogalacturonan (HG), rhamnogalacturonan-I (RG-I), rhamnogalacturonan-II (RG-II) and, at a lower

extent, arabinan, arabinogalactan-I (AG-I) and arabinogalactan-II (AG-II), as well as substituted

galacturonans like apiogalacturonan (AGA) and xylogalacturonan (XGA).

174 The Biochemistry of the Grape Berry Goulao et al.

HGs are polymers formed by !-1,4-linked linear chains of more than 72-100 GalpA residues [14], and can

account for more than 60-65% of the total plant pectins. The walls of fruits such as tomato and mango have

up to 35% and 52% of uronic acid, respectively [15, 16]. HG GalpA residues may be methyl-esterified at

the C-6 carboxyl and/or acetylated at the O-2 or O-3 position. Methyl-esterification is tightly regulated in a

developmental and tissue-specific way. Methyl-esterified regions have neutral charge, but the unmethylated

GalpA residues are negatively charged and may be ionically cross-linked with Ca2+ to form stable gels with

other pectic molecules, when stretches of 10 or more consecutive un-methyl-esterified residues occur. The

hypothesised in vivo structure of the HG-calcium complex is referred to as the “egg-box” [17] and

describes the close packing of HG that occurs upon Ca2+-induced gelling in the CW of plants. Methyl-

esterification neutralises the charge on GalpA residues and thereby abolishes their ability to cross-link

calcium ions. The occurrence of micro-domains inside the pectic polysaccharides means the localisation of

precise areas with distinct properties as the result, to some extent, of a different, localised demethylation

mechanism which may lead to stiffening or loosening of the wall (reviewed by Goulao [18]).

RG-I is the major branched, heterogeneous and hydrated component of the middle lamella and primary

CWs. It consists of a backbone holding a variable number of !-1,4-linked GalpA and !-1,2-linked

rhamnose repeats, and three types of neutral sugar side groups attached to the 4-position of approximately

20-80% of the rhamnose backbone units, depending on the source of the polysaccharide [19]. These side-

chains can derive from single or polymeric substitutions and are mainly composed of !-1,5-L-arabinans, -

1,4-D-galactans and arabinogalactans, where arabinose is usually terminal and galactose links can be

connected through C-4, C-3 or C-6. Its abundance is developmentally and differentially regulated [20].

RG-II molecules are stretches of HG backbone approximately 7-9 !-1,4-D-GalpA residues long, substituted

with clusters of four highly complex and well-defined conserved side chains that contain 12 different types

of sugars, in more than 20 different linkages [21]. Its structure consists of self-associated dimers cross-

linked by single borate diesters [22, 23] and stabilised by the presence of calcium [24].

The three main pectin domains, HG, RG-I and RG-II, are described as being covalently linked to form the pectic

matrix, envisioned as a unique and complex macromolecule [25-27], although the nature of their covalent

arrangements is still unclear. A representation of the pectin network was proposed by Vincken et al. [26] and

afterwards supported by Coenen et al. [27], in which RG-I supplies the main backbone to which HG, RG-II and

the other less abundant pectic domains are covalently cross-linked to form side-chains of the same molecule.

In addition to the polysaccharides, primary CW contains about 10% structural proteins, and protein rods act

as supporting brackets to the long polysaccharide chains [28]. Five classes of structural apoplastic proteins

have been described: extensins, glycine-rich proteins (GRPs), proline-rich proteins (PRPs), arabinogalactan

proteins (AGPs), and solanaceous lectins [29]. Extensins are rich in hydroxyproline amino acid residues

that may covalently cross-link polysaccharides to form an interlocking framework where the ends of the

protein rods are wrapped around the cellulose microfibrils [30]. AGPs are proteoglycans that have been

mainly implicated in cell adhesion [31].

Secondary Cell Wall

When the cell stops dividing and expanding, in some tissues lignin is deposited within the cellulose

microfibrils and matrix carbohydrates, establishing chemical bonds with non-cellulosic carbohydrates,

forming a thick secondary CW. According to the chemical groups that stabilise polysaccharide-phenol

complexes, two types of bonds are identified: hydrogen bonds between the hydroxyl groups of phenols and

the oxygen atoms of CW polysaccharides sugar moieties or hydrophobic interactions with secondary

structures of some polysaccharides [3]. Generally, secondary CWs consist of three layers: outer (S1),

middle (S2), and inner (S3) [3, 32]. The formation of secondary walls occurs mainly in xylem vessels,

structural fibers, seed pods and seed integument, as in grapevine berry seeds [33, 34]. The process starts in

the middle lamella and the primary wall (initiation of S1 formation). When the polysaccharide matrix of the

S2 layer is completed, lignification proceeds through the secondary wall [35], in particular at the final stage

of xylem differentiation [36]. Lignin deposition is then developmentally programmed assuring structural


integrity and waterproof of the CW and enabling the transport of water and solutes through the vascular

system, although its biosynthesis can also be induced by biotic and abiotic stress conditions [35, 37].

Lignin, the second most abundant plant organic compound, is a branched heteropolymer of

phenylpropanoids synthesised from the polymerisation of the three most abundant p-hydroxycinnamyl

monolignols, p-coumaryl, p-coniferyl and p-sinapyl alcohols, which, once incorporated into the polymer,

are referred to as p-hydroxyphenyl (H), guaiacyl (G) and syringil (S) units, respectively [34, 38, 39]. The

relative amount of each unit varies between species, tissues and environmental conditions [34].

Dehydrogenated monolignols can form dimers through covalent bonds between the central carbon of the

monolignol tail - type [34], or between the carbon and C atoms of the aromatic ring, e.g. -O-4 or -5.

After a new dehydrogenation of the dimer, another covalent bond can be established by a polymerisation

process of one unit at a time. Molecular species other than the canonical monolignols can be integrated in

the lignin polymer, which explains the plasticity of the polymerisation process and the variability of the

final polymer [34, 36]. The lignin of angiosperms, as stands for the grapevine, is almost exclusively

composed by G and S subunits. In poplar, a woody plant, the linear lignin length is between 13 and 20 units

[40], but no reports are available for the length of the grapevine lignin chain.

MODELS OF SUPRA-MOLECULAR ARCHITECTURE OF THE PRIMARY CELL WALL

The CW is represented as a three-dimensional network containing interconnected fluid-filled pores that

form pathways for solutes through the walls. Although the complexity of the primary CW

supraorganisation and architecture is under continuous debate, a model of supramolecular organisation of

the dicot primary CW based on the “tethered network” model [11, 41] has been the most consensual in the

last years. In this model, XG is proposed to form hydrogen bonds with cellulose microfibrils, acting as a

load bearing tether between the microfibrils, which reinforces the CW. Its location both in the inner and

outer surfaces of microfibrils allows for the binding of adjacent microfibrils, while preventing hydrogen

bonding between cellulose microfibrils, and thus facilitating each microfibril to slide during cell expansion.

Yet, only about ca 8% [42] of the cellulose microfibril surfaces are covered with XGs and not all of the XG

is adsorbed to cellulose [42, 43]. Moreover, XGs bind to the surface of cellulose microfibrils making CW-

XG a composite structure in which cellulose crystallites are embedded in a matrix of XG with a semi-rigid

(straightened backbone) conformation, that is, a matrix that is partly ordered rather than amorphous [44].

This XG-cellulose network is considered to be organised independently and embedded in a second network

formed by an amorphous pectin matrix, which acts as a cement (reviewed by Cosgrove [45]) where the

negatively charged chains of polygalacturonic acid provide the capacity of interacting and binding with

positively charged molecules such as polyamines, cations and positive charges of proteins. However, in muro

covalent linkages between RG-I-arabinan side chains and cellulose microfibrils [46-51], and anionic complexes

derived from covalent linkages between XG and pectins have been reported [52-57]. RG-I was found to be very

firmly integrated into the wall [58, 59], providing structural links between the two major CW networks, which

are expected to have a role in maintaining the structure of the wall. Pectic polymers operating in cell adhesion

are possibly tethered into CW structures by links through XG located in CW regions that are important for

maintaining cell adhesion [12]. Moreover, as pectic chains are much more flexible than hemicellulose

molecules [60], the alignment of the rod-like chain segments with the microfibrillar surface is less likely, and it

seems possible that the hydrogen-bonded interface is relatively disordered [61].

Finally, a third network of structural proteins covalently bound to each other and to other cell components

is also often considered [62]. Several models have been proposed to explain the CW architecture (reviewed

in [18, 45, 63]) but, to date, there seems to be no definitive evidence favouring a given model over the

others. Realistic wall models should consider a highly cross-linked wall wherein pectin-pectin, pectin-XG,

pectin-cellulose, pectin-phenolics, pectin-protein and XG-cellulose provide a cohesive network.

COMPOSITION OF THE GRAPE BERRY CELL WALL

The mesocarp of mature grapes follows the typical Type-I CW model, consisting of approximately 90% by

weight of polysaccharides and less than 10% of a protein fraction rich in arginine and hydroxyproline


residues. Cellulose and polygalacturonans are the major constituents, each accounting for ca 30-40% by

weight of the polysaccharide component of the walls [64, 65]. They display, however, significant varietal

differences in the relative abundance of the two polysaccharides. While the mesocarp cells of Traminer and

Sauvignon Blanc berries have thin CWs, skins, on the other hand, consist of thick-walled epidermal and

hypodermal cells [66]. In the exocarp, polysaccharides account for 50% of the CW material [67], with a

glycosyl-residue composition similar to mesocarp walls [64, 68]. Neutral polysaccharides (cellulose, XG,

arabinan, galactan, xylan and mannan) account for 30%, while acidic pectin substances (of which ca 62%

are methylesterified) account for 20%. The remaining part is composed of 15% insoluble

proanthocyanidins, <5% structural proteins [67] and lignin [69].

The pectic fraction is composed of 65% HG, 10% RG-I, 2% RG-II and 23% neutral side chains [64, 65,

68]. Arabinans and AGI contribute with 4-6% by weight to the pectic polysaccharides [64]. Noticeably, all

berries contain overall high amounts of HG in comparison with other fruits, and grapes have higher

proportions of RG-I compared to other berries [70]. Differences in pectin composition have been observed

between the pulp and the skin [65]. Seventy-five percent of the grape berry walls (by weight) originate

from the skin, representing 25% of the total fresh berry weight [65, 71]. The relative molar distribution

(mol %) of the different polysaccharides in the red wine grape skins was estimated to be 57-62 HG, 6-14

cellulose, 10-11 XG, 7 mol %, 4.5-5 RGI, 3.5-4 RGII, 3 mol % AG, and 0.5-1 mannans [72]. Also, the

relative abundance of grape skin CW polymers differs from the pulp. A three-fold higher content of pectic

polysaccharide fractions was detected in the skin as compared to flesh tissues [65]. On the other hand, pulp

tissues contain a 2-fold more buffer-soluble AGPs and pectins than skins [65, 68].

Hemicellulosic polysaccharides consisting mainly of XGs, comprise approximately 8-12% of the total wall

polysaccharide fraction, both in the pulp and skin [64, 71], and the remainder is made up of smaller

amounts of mannans, heteroxylans, arabinans, galactans and arabinogalactans [64, 67, 71]. Although grape

XG and XGs isolated from the walls of other dicot plants have similar structures, the amount is lower than

the typical XG content of dicot walls [71]. XGs isolated from mesocarp and exocarp CWs of grape berries

are composed of eight types of oligosaccharides (XXXG, XLXG, XXLG, XLLG, XXFG, XLFG, XFFG

and XXG; see Fry et al. [73] for nomenclature) in similar proportions in the skin and pulp, except for

XXFG, which is more abundant in the pulp, and XLFG, which is more abundant in the skin [71].

Concerning secondary compounds, it is assumed that most phenolic compounds are nearly absent from the

grape berry flesh, mainly embodied in the skin and seeds. The CW of grape skins includes ca 15% tannins

with an average degree of polymerisation of 28 [3]. Recently, Bidon et al. [69] have reported a PA skin

fraction accounting for 54% of the total extractable PA. Interestingly, a different interaction pattern occurs

between flesh and skin CW material and PA, with possible effects on PA extraction and winemaking.

CELL WALL MODIFICATIONS DURING BERRY GROWTH AND RIPENING

Remodelling of the fruit CW is mandatory to provide the flexibility required for cell expansion during fruit

growth and to modulate final texture attributes which, together with flavour and aroma, render the fruit

attractive to a variety of seed-dispersing organisms. In fact, fruit softening during ripening is one of the

developmental events whereby most changes occur in the CWs, which explains why most research on fruit

CW metabolism has focused primarily on the ripening phase of development.

Grapes develop according to a double sigmoidal curve. The first growth phase (phase I) is due to cell division

and subsequently to cell enlargement followed by the lag phase (phase II), which is characterised by the lack of

changes in berry weight and volume. The end of this phase coincides with the onset of ripening (veraison, V)

and takes place ca 5-8 weeks before maturity. Following veraison, the second growth phase (phase III) occurs

with increasing size of the central mesocarp cells, entirely due to cell expansion within the berry. Grape

ripening represents the last third of berry development, so grapes soften at the same time as they expand, during

this second growth stage. In grapes, after the onset of ripening, in addition to sugar accumulation and water

influx, growth results from the synthesis of new CW material [74].


Changes in Pulp Cell Walls

During ripening, the fruit CW experiences a general increase in pectin solubility, losses of non-glucosyl

neutral sugars from pectin side-chains, and loosening of the xyloglucan-cellulose network [75-77]. These

events are common to every fruit species and may or not be accompanied by a decrease in the molecular

mass of matrix polysaccharides [76, 77]. Depolymerisation varies among fruit species and, even within a

species, different timing and extent of modifications may occur according to specific genotypes [77].

In grape berries, dissolution of the pulp CW during ripening is observed [78], but apparently no dramatic

changes in wall polysaccharide composition seem to occur [74]. Instead, more subtle structural

modifications of specific constituent components may contribute to softening.

The total amount of uronic acids (UA) per berry increases rapidly during phase I due to marked increases of

newly synthesised highly methyl-esterified HGs [79]. However, this new synthesis of HG occurs more

slowly during phases II and III, concomitantly with slower cell enlargement and thinning of walls to

accommodate fruit expansion [80], and it is not sufficient to offset thickening and enlargement of walls

during these stages [81], as grape pericarp CWs do not thicken appreciably during ripening [66]. However,

as a consequence of the increase in cell volume without concomitant wall synthesis, the CW becomes in

fact thinner at the end of maturation [74, 82] both in mesocarp and exocarp [83], which can explain the

lower amount of isolated CW material as ripening progresses, particularly during the last weeks of grape

development [82].

The most significant change in the composition and chemical properties of the wall of berry mesocarp cells

during the onset of ripening is the decrease in its galactose/galactan content, particularly the -1,4-linked

GalpA residues [74] corresponding to a significant loss of AG-I from side chains of pectic polysaccharides,

from before veraison (BV) to ripe berries [74]. This event has been reported as a crucial step associated

with the initiation of softening [82].

Total pectins from Muscat Gordo grapes decline from 58%, two weeks BV, to 47%, four weeks post-

veraison (PV) [74]. The type of pectin found in grape berries also changes during ripening, as CW-bound

pectins decrease together with an increase in the water-soluble fraction [84]. In fact, at PV, the decrease in

wall-bound pectins is accompanied by a two-fold increase in water-soluble polysaccharides [74, 82],

disclosing solubilisation mainly of galacturonan as ripening progresses and the grapes soften [74, 84]. A

higher solubility of polygalacturonic acid (PGA), AG-II and arabinan is also noticed [74]. However, during

veraison, galactose and arabinose content in the water-soluble fraction did not specifically change [85],

suggesting that the increase in UA content of the water-soluble fraction is due to degradation or

demethylation of pectin, more easily extracted in hot water. It has been suggested that de-esterification

increases pectin solubilisation by creating electronic repulsion between negatively-charged molecules that

could result in the loosening of weakly attached pectins [18, 86]. The presence of high molecular mass

pectic polysaccharides at BV probably reflects differences in the degree of esterification from initial to later

stages. Changes in the degree of pectin methylation seem to be cultivar-specific. While in Gordo an initial

decline in the degree of esterification is observed during ripening, in Ugni Blanc, it decreases from 68% in

green stages to less than 20% as ripening progresses [74, 81].

A decrease of the molecular masses of both pectic and hemicellulosic polysaccharides and a reduction in

the cellulose and total hemicellulose content are observed at V and proceed throughout subsequent phases

[85]. It should be noted that, according to Nunan et al. [74] at PV cellulose and XG levels decrease on a

fresh weight basis but not on a mol% basis.

In pectin fraction, total amount and the neutral and acidic sugars of the water soluble fraction, temporally

increase from BV to V stages, decreasing rapidly PV [84, 85]. In contrast, neutral sugar of the

hemicellulosic fraction decrease from BV and throughout V [85]. This discloses a pattern of temporal

modifications in grape berry softening in which CW polysaccharides of the mesocarp are promptly

modified from BV to V [85] (Fig. 1).


Another noteworthy wall modification in grape ripening is an important increase in the content of proteins

at PV [74]. From phase II throughout final maturity, the protein content of the mesocarp CW increase by

more than 50% [74]. Amino acid analyses reveal that such increase is largely due to hydroxyproline-rich

proteins, including extensins [74, 87] (Fig. 1).

Figure 1: Cell wall modifications during berry growth and ripening. Most significant changes in the composition and

chemical properties of the wall of berry cells take place at veraison and post veraison stages, at phases II and III of

growth and ripening.

Changes in Skin Cell Walls

In all development phases the active metabolism of the skin severely influences the final characteristics of

the grape berry. Berry size does not change from BV to V, even with the advent of softening, most likely

due to the unchanged stiffness of the outer skin [85]. Besides differences in composition (see previous sub-

chapter), there are also differences in the skin CW dynamics when compared to pulp tissues. In fact, the

massive dissolution of CW found in the pulp PV [78] was not observed in the skin [66]. However, skin

loosens continuously PV. Ultra-structural changes of the loosening skin include wall swelling in epidermis

and sub-epidermis cells and degradation of the middle lamella in the hypodermis cells. Additionally, the

wall surfaces become ‘‘wavy’’ as the ionic calcium bridge among pectin molecules is broken [88].

Similarly to the pulp, changes in the constituents of the grape skin CW are well related with the degree of

ripening, namely the decrease in the amount of CW material and galactose [83] in solubilisation of AGP-I,

and in the degree of pectin methyl- and acetyl- esterification (most varieties) [89]. Changes in the degree of

pectin methylation seems to be cultivar specific since it decreases as ripening progresses in some cultivars

like Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot and Monastrell, while it hardly changes in Syrah [83]. These changes are

accompanied by the accumulation of glucose, while other neutral sugars showed no significant variations.

However, the amount of skin CW polysaccharides was estimated to correspond to ca 4.2 mg/berry in Shiraz

grapes, remaining constant during ripening [89].

During ripening, a more than two-fold increase in water-soluble fraction occurs both in the pulp and the

skin. However, while it stands for 10 to 23% of the mesocarp CW material [74], it represents a small

fraction (3 to 8%) in the skin [89]. Even considering that in grapes the pulp to skin weight ratio is about

1:5, a smaller proportion of water-soluble polysaccharides is present in the skin [89], which corresponds to

increases of 450-920 µg/berry in the pulp of Gordo Muscat compared to a 220-270 µg/berry increase for


the Shiraz skin tissue [74, 89]. Likewise, in Grenache Blanc grapes, the water-soluble fraction accounts for

30% and 13% of the pulp and skin, respectively [65]. Partial loss of wall structural polysaccharides is

compensated by the incorporation of structural proteins and formation of phenolic cross-linkages that

happen at the end of the maturation period especially in the walls of epidermis and sub-epidermis cells [88].

Since proteins are confined to the outmost four layers of skin cells, they might contribute to the necessary

strength of the tissue to maintain berry integrity, acting as a protective tissue [83, 88]. This aspect may be

an important difference in CW modification between the skin and the pulp [88].

Therefore, changes in the skin CWs are continuous but restrained in comparison to other fruits or other

grapevine tissues, particularly the small proportion of water-soluble polysaccharides [89], making skin

more resistant to solubilisation and maintaining berry integrity.

Modulation of Berry Growth by Mesocarp and Exocarp Cell Wall Modifications

During phase I, cellular expansion proceeds throughout all tissues, while during the transition between

phases II and III only the exocarp cells expand [82], and during phase III (berry growth and ripening) only

the expansion of the mesocarp cells occurs. Therefore, grape berry skin controls PV growth by remodelling

its CW [88, 90-92]. The loosening of mesocarp CW allows for the accumulation of soluble sugars and takes

place prior to the loosening of exocarp CW [91]. Since veraison is observed at the end of the slow growth

phase between the first and the second growth stages, little differences occur in berry size during this

period, suggesting that rapid structural modifications of CW polysaccharides verified during veraison

without any large change in berry size are due to the unchanged stiffness of the outer skin [85]. This

evidence is further supported by differential transcription of genes encoding CW-modifying enzymes (as

discussed below). Taken as a whole, changes in CW components lead to skin loosening and consequently

berry enlargement at early PV, and loosening of pulp tissue CW contributes to berry softening [88, 91].

Secondary Cell Wall

Intense research has focused on the phenylpropanoid metabolism but little attention was given to the

characterization of its role in fruit development, particularly in grape berries [38]. In the grape berry and other

fleshy fruits, both xylem and phloem vessels deliver water, depending mainly on the developmental stage of the

fruit. As a fleshy fruit matures, there is a clear reduction in the proportion of water entering the fruit via the

xylem. It was accepted that lignified xylem cells are unable to increase in length during the second stage of

berry growth, occurring then a disruption in xylem continuity. However, as under the influence of a hydrostatic

gradient, the water movement was recovered, and it is now accepted that the second growth stage is apparently

not related to a lack of functionality of xylem vasculature but to an increase in phloem transport [93]. Clues for

monolignol polymerisation were reported in Gamay rouge berries as being distributed in the whole fruit but

specifically localised to berry xylem vessels at veraison [94].

In mature grape seeds, lignin accounts for 44% of the CW [95]. In grape seeds, a histochemical study

showed that lignin is present in cells of medium integument in increasing amounts as the seed matures. BV

lignin is slightly detected in the thin walls of large cells, while at V and until harvest the staining with

specific dyes for lignin was visible in thick walls of increasingly smaller sized cells [33]. The deposition of

seed phenolics is associated with berry development and maturation: changes in seed coat colour are related

to berry anthocyanins and total skin phenolics, so the colour of the seed coat can be used as an indicator of

ripeness [96].

CONNECTION OF THE CELL WALL CHARACTERISTICS TO BERRY TECHNOLOGICAL

APPLICATIONS

Differences between Cultivars

Contrasting softening behaviours during ripening between fruit genotypes and cultivars from the same

species are associated with distinct CW composition and related enzymatic metabolism [77]. In grapes, the

CW composition differs sufficiently between varieties to allow for their discrimination, even with respect to

technological differences [83]. The most striking difference between the mesocarp walls of the firm table


grape cultivar Ohanez and the softer, multipurpose cultivar Muscat Gordo Blanco lies in the relative

proportions of cellulose and pectic polysaccharides, and in the hydroxyproline composition of wall-

associated structural proteins [64], with Ohanez having significantly higher cellulose and hydroxyproline

contents than Muscat Gordo Blanco [64]. In fact, among the most abundant polysaccharides of the grape

berry walls, the measured cellulose content is 39% and 31% by weight in the Ohanez and Muscat Gordo

Blanco cultivars, respectively. Additionally, in Ohanez walls the extensin network is more abundant, which

is consistent with its firmer texture [64]. In contrast, galacturonans account for 29% to 41% in the same

varieties. Therefore, Gordo walls appear to require a larger pectic matrix phase than the firmer Ohanez

grapes. Similarly, XG which are probably closely associated with cellulose microfibrils [9], account for 8%

by weight of the walls in Gordo and 12% in walls from Ohanez [64].

Implications of the Cell Wall in Winemaking

Different wine processing methods are directly related with the CW. White wines are made by fermenting

grape juice, which contains little amounts of skin CW, in contrast to the process of fermenting whole

berries in red wines. A first consequence is the amount of RG-II, which is a major polysaccharide

component of red wine. One litre of red wine may contain between 100 to 150 mg of RG-II while white

wine typically contains 20 to 30 mg of RG-II per litre.

In addition, the CW of grape berry skin cells is of main relevance to wine making, since it forms a

hydrophobic barrier to the diffusion of phenols, holding the main control of extractability [6, 97]. Pinelo et

al. [3] propose that phenolic substances, including tannins, can be deposited into the lignin-polysaccharide

matrix of lignified secondary CW or bind to macromolecules, including CW polysaccharides. It is assumed

that most phenolic compounds are nearly absent from the grape berry flesh, mainly embodied in the skin

and seeds, and can be released during the wine making process [3]. However, normally there is no

reference to lignin, although this phenylpropanoid polymer ornates the secondary walls of xylem vascular

bundles in a network that crosses the whole volume of the flesh layer, the main contributor to wine volume

[98]. On a per berry basis, tannins accumulate during the first growth period and decline during the second

growth stage (phase III) [99]. Then, the degradation of CW polysaccharides is crucial for the yield of

phenolic compounds from grape skin cells [69]. The retention of phenols by the CW depends on the

composition, structure and molecular weight of the phenol molecule and of CW physical traits [69, 97].

Porosity, structure and chemical composition can influence the aggregation between conformational CW

polysaccharides and phenolic substances. The curious concept of phenolic ripeness [100] is associated with

anthocyanin content and extractability. Anthocyanin extraction from the grape skin and diffusion into must

and wine depends on anthocyanin content but also on the capacity of the berry skin to yield up the pigment

as a consequence of CW degradation. When phenolic ripeness is attained, the pectin-rich middle lamella

between cells is degraded, and the CWs are perforated and allow for extraction and diffusion [6].

In berry seeds, tannins have the same constitutive units as the skin tannins but a lower degree of

polymerisation [3]. Along with seed growth and development, tannins accumulate when the seed acquires a

green colour (phase I); they reach a maximum accompanied by tannin oxidation when seeds show a yellow

colour (phase II); and they decrease as the seed dries and matures, taking a brown colour (phase III). The

decrease in tannin level is probably related to aggregation of the oxidised forms of the seed coat.

THE VITIS CELL WALLOME

Vitis Cell Wall Key Enzymes

The covalent modifications of CW polysaccharides during fruit growth and ripening result largely from the

concerted activity of a set of hydrolases and transglycosylases [2, 77, 101]. The cooperative action between

members of several different enzyme families, including expansins, endo- -1,4-glucanases (EGase),

xyloglucan endotransglycosylases/hydrolases (XTH), -xylanases (Xyn), endomannanases,

polygalacturonases (PG) or pectate lyases (PL) are of primary interest in CW metabolism during fruit

development. On the other hand, esterases like pectin methylesterases (PME) and pectin acetylesterases

(PAE), exo-acting hydrolases and other glycosidases such as -galactosidases ( -gal), !-L-


arabinofuranosidases (AFase) or xylosidases (Xyl) are also involved through cooperative action with

hydrolases in the pectic or hemicellulosic polymer metabolism [101, 102]. Removal of side chains

containing neutral sugar may be necessary to expose the polysaccharide’s backbone for cleavage, thus

facilitating its solubilisation [103] and promoting a decrease in the degree of polymerisation which, in turn,

can modify the binding between polymers [104]. Cooperative events can result from the disassembly of the

hemicellulosic network proved necessary for modifications in the pectic network due to the physical

accessibility of pectolytic enzymes to pectin substrates. The panorama is even more complex because new

components are synthesised and integrated into the CW, even during ripening [105, 106]. Nonetheless, the

real contribution of the referred enzymes still remains to be fully elucidated.

As far as the secondary CW is concerned, after the deamination of phenylalanine by phenylalanine

ammonia lyase (PAL) to form cinnamic acid, the lignin synthesis pathway includes hydroxylations of the

aromatic ring, methylation of one or two hydroxyl groups and two reductions of the carboxylic to the

monolignol alcohol side chain [34]. The crucial enzymes and respective coding genes are cinnamate 4-

hydroxylase (C4H), 4-coumarate:CoA ligase (4CL), cynnamoyl CoA reductase (CCR), -

hydroxycinnamoyl-CoA:quinate/shikimate/p-hydroxy-cinnamoyl transferase (HCT), cinnamyl alcohol

dehydrogenase (CAD) and ferulate 5-hydroxylase (F5H). The end products are the monolignols p-

coumaroyl, p-coniferyl and p-sinapyl which differ in their methylation degree [3, 34]. Polymerisation

occurs after monolignol dehydrogenation by large families of apoplastic peroxidases and laccases which

can vary in specificity according to each type of monolignol [34, 36].

The Vitis Cell Wall-Related Genome

The sequencing and public availability of the Vitis genome [7, 8] makes it possible to focus on individual

pathways, to profile the expression pattern of isoforms associated with each tissue, developmental phase

and response to the different stresses affecting grape berries during their development, and anticipating the

effects on wine production and quality. For that reason, retrieving the sequences of coding regions and

predicted amino acid primary structure of enzymes known to act on the Vitis CW is mandatory to support

omics-related research. Table 1 provides a list of the number of genes related with primary CW

biosynthesis and modification and with secondary CW biosynthesis present in the genome of higher plant

sequenced species Vitis vinifera, Oryza sativa, Populus trichocarpa and Arabidopsis thaliana.

In silico analysis shows that, in Vitis, most of the primary CW related gene families present a number of

members similar to Arabidopsis, rice and Populus, suggesting the conservation of mechanisms associated with

CW biosynthesis and modification along plant evolution (Table 1). As expected, a higher number of genes

involved in the biosynthesis of lignin were retrieved in the woody species Vitis and Populus as compared with

Arabidopsis and Oryza, (Table 1) but it is worthy to note that Vitis genome holds more genes than Populus [107].

CesA (Cellulose synthase), XTH (Xyloglucan endotransglucosylase/hydrolase), EGase ( -1,4-endoglucanase),

PME (Pectin methylesterase), PMEI (Pectin methylesterase/nvertase inhibitor), PAE (Pectin acetylesterase), PG

(Polygalacturonase), PL (Pectate lyase), C4H (Cinnamate 4-hydroxylase), HCT (Hydroxycinnamoyl-CoA

shikimate/quinate hydroxycinnamoyl transferase), C3H (Coumarate 3-hydroxylase), CCR (Cinnamoyl-CoA

reductase), F5H (Ferulate 5-hydroxylase), CAD (cinnamyl alcohol dehydrogenase). The protein sequences were

extracted from public databases: Arabidopsis sequences from TAIR (http://www.arabidopsis.org/ index.jsp) and

Cell Wall Navigator (http://bioweb.ucr.edu/Cellwall/); rice sequences from orygenesdb

(http://orygenesdb.cirad.fr/cgi-bin/gbrowse/odb_japonica/?name=Os_1:1..10000) and Cell Wall Navigator;

Populus sequences from JGI (http://genome.jgi-psf.org/Poptr1/poptr1.home.html) and Vitis sequences from

Genoscope genomic database 8X (http://www.genoscope.cns.fr/externe/GenomeBrowser/Vitis/). Databases last

access September 2010.

Amino acid sequence similarity analyses reveal that Vitis CW-related sequences cluster with orthologs from

monocot, dicot and woody model species in most families (Fig. 2A, B). Noticeably, in families such as

XTHs some clusters are enriched with Vitis sequences, suggesting specification with respect to evolution or

a possible correlation with substrate specificity (Fig. 2C). This aspect may be important to unravel CW

dynamics in this species and deserves further investigation.


Table 1: Number of genes related to primary cell wall biosynthesis and modification and to secondary cell wall

biosynthesis retrieved in silico from the higher plant sequenced species Vitis vinifera, Oryza sativa, Populus

trichocarpa and Arabidopsis thaliana genomes.

Vitis vinifera Oryza sativa Populus trichocarpa Arabidopsis thaliana

Primary Cell Wall

CesA 11 10 18 10

Expansin 30 56 36 36

XTH 33 29 24 33

-1,3-glucanase 43 65 73 49

EGase 21 24 31 25

PME 36 37 84 66

PMEI 11 22 48 33

PAE 7 10 11 9

PG 60 48 45 66

PL 16 10 27 27

Secondary Cell Wall

C4H 5 3 2 1

HCT 16 9 11 2

C3H 3 1 2 1

CCR 20 12 18 7

F5H 3 2 3 2

CAD 8 12 12 9

The Grape Berry Cell Wall Transcriptome

One way of tackling the pathways of a given physiological event is to understand the regulation of the

transcription of related genes. Initial studies based on “candidate gene” approaches in grapes associated -

gal, !-gal, PME, PL enzyme activity and gene expression with changes in mesocarp CW pectin

composition, during berry ripening [81, 82, 87, 109]. These events were accompanied by the up-regulation

of genes involved in the cellulose:hemicellulose network, such as expansins and XTH, at veraison,

coincidently with the depolymerization of XG [87, 109, 110]. In grape berries, the expression of EGase

genes seems to be confined to the initial growth stages and was not detected during ripening [87], which

contrasts with the large majority of fruit species, except for apple [111, 112]. Therefore these genes are

pointed out as strong candidates to be involved in the metabolism of the grape berry CW.

In the skin, as stated above, the remodelling of the CW apparently exerts a marked influence on the control of

berry growth during phases I and III [92]. The transcription profiles of candidate genes for CW-modifying

enzymes support this assumption. A bimodal trend is observed, with high levels of expression coincident with

periods of rapid berry growth as well as cellular expansion and low expression levels during growth arrest [92].

Despite major differences in grape cell morphology between the exocarp and mesocarp, most genes for CW

metabolic processes follow similar expression profiles in both tissues throughout berry development [92].

However, different patterns in genes for some CW-modifying families, including -1,3-endoglucanase, PME,

PL, and two genes from the expansin family (EXP3 and EXPL) were observed [92]. The differences are more

evident during the rapid growth phase associated with the beginning of phase III, with an up-regulation of -

1,3-endoglucanase, EXP3 and EXL gene expression in the exocarp accompanied by a down-regulation in the

mesocarp, and a lag in the up-regulated expression of exocarp PL, PME and EXPL during phase II [92].

Noticeably, the up-regulation of exocarp transcripts during transition phases II and III is accompanied by a

tissue-specific expansion of both epidermal and hypodermal cells. This exocarp up-regulation followed by the


down-regulation of -1,3-endoglucanase and expansin-like genes discloses patterns of gene expression

concurrent with changes in the epidermis and hypodermis CW thickness, indicating a role in CW loosening to

accommodate expansion of the mesocarp tissues [92]. Moreover, exocarp tissues exhibit a larger increase in

transcript level of PME and EGase, in contrast to the increased transcription of EXPL in the mesocarp [92]. It

should be emphasised that this research followed a “candidate gene” approach, so the possible involvement of

other isoforms and gene families is expected.


Figure 2: Phylogenetic dendrogram of cellulose synthases (CesA, A), cynnamoyl CoA reductases (CCR, B) and

xyloglucan endotransglycosylases/hydrolases (XTH, C; magnification of cluster enriched in Vitis sequences, C’).

Dendrograms were generated using ClustalX and TreeView software [108] based on mature protein sequences

extracted as in Table 1 of all Vitis (red) family members annotated so far and representative members of Arabidopsis

(black), Oryza (green) and Populus (blue) protein families.


With large Expressed Sequence Tags (EST)-based microarrays, new insights about the regulation of CW in

Vitis berries was achieved, taking advantage of sequence annotation and high throughput gene expression.

The public release of the Vitis genome and the annotation of Vitis genes allowed for the in-depth study of

the functional genomics of berry CW, including the genes coding for enzymes associated with CW

biosynthesis, modification during cell growth and fruit ripening as well as the deposition of secondary wall

polymers, providing a better picture of the associated pathways. In general, large scale high-throughput

transcriptomic microarray data indicate several categories of genes that are significantly differentially

expressed during berry development (Table 2). An incidence of genes related to CW organisation and

biogenesis are included in clusters showing overexpression during development, thus disclosing the

prevalence of metabolic processes involved in CW synthesis and loosening PV [113].

Table 2: Summary of representative primary cell wall biosynthesis (CesA) and modification gene families (cellulose-

hemicellulose network: XTH and expansin; pectin network: PG, PME, PMEI) strongly differentially expressed in grape

berry tissues during developmental phases or imposed treatments.

Gene

family Method Condition Tissue Reference

CesA Affymetrix Vitis GeneChip® Microarray Berry development Deseeded berry [113]

Whole berry [114]

Array-Ready Oligo Set™ for Vitis C2H4 (ethylene) treatment Whole berry a [115]

XTH Affymetrix Vitis GeneChip® Microarray Berry development Deseeded berry [113]

Whole berry [114]

Water deficit Pulp, skin, seed [116]


Oligo Array Berry development Whole berry [117]

Expansin Affymetrix Vitis GeneChip® Microarray Berry development Deseeded berry [113]

Whole berry [114]




EST sequencing Berry development Whole berry [118, 119]

PG Affymetrix Vitis GeneChip® Microarray Water deficit Pulp, skin, seed [116]

ABA treatment Skin [120]


PME Affymetrix Vitis GeneChip® Microarray Berry development Deseeded berry [113]

Whole berry [114]


ABA treatment Skin [120]




EST sequencing Berry development Whole berry [119, 121]

PMEI Affymetrix Vitis GeneChip® Microarray Berry development Deseeded berry [113]

Whole berry [114]


EST sequencing Berry development Whole berry [118]

a Gene expression was further investigated individually in the pulp, skin and seed via quantitative real-time RT-PCT.

The previously described involvement of some gene families in berry growth and softening was confirmed

with large-scale transcriptomics. Among these are included pectin modifying enzymes (PME, PG and PL)

and cellulose-hemicellulosic ones (expansins and XTH). However, in moving from “candidate gene”

approaches to “large scale high throughput” transcriptomics, it was possible to identify in the berry

members of previously CW-related overlooked families such as pectin methylesterase inhibitors (PMEIs)

or cellulose synthases (CesA) [114], as well as additional members of previously studied families

associated with CW modifications. For instance, by using the Affymetrix Vitis GeneChip genome array, 10

members of the XTH family were modulated during development, four of them strongly up-regulated

during ripening [113] compared to the two “candidate genes” previously investigated both in berry skin and

flesh [87, 109]. Moreover, comprehensive comparisons of gene expression between pulp, skin and seed

tissues are now facilitated [116].

Functional genomics of lignin biosynthesis is established for Arabidopsis with key genes identified by

screening of mutant and transgenic plants, gene silencing, overexpression and other reverse-genetics

approaches [34, 39, 122]. In the general lignin biosynthetic pathway, C4H, a cytochrome P450-dependent

mono-oxygenase, converts cinnamic acid, the product of phenylalanine deamination, into p-coumaric acid,

which is esterified with CoA to p-coumaroyl-CoA by 4CL. Then CCR, the first enzyme of the monolignol

specific biosynthetic pathway converts the lateral chain of coumaroyl-CoA ester to its respective aldehyde.

A further reduction step catalysed by CAD forms p-coumaryl alcohol - the monomer for H lignin. At p-

coumaroyl- CoA level the pathway can give rise to a distinct branch: HCT converts p-coumaroyl-CoA to p-

coumaroyl shikimic acid, which is converted to caffeoyl shikimic acid by C3H (also a cytochrome P450-

dependent mono-oxygenase), then converted to caffeoyl-CoA by HCT, which is methylated to feruoyl-CoA

and finally converted to coniferyl aldehyde by CCR. From this metabolite two new branches can proceed:

one catalysed by CAD giving rise to coniferyl alcohol, the monomer for G lignin; a second one with F5H,

the third cytochrome P450-dependent mono-oxygenase of the pathway, catalysing the hydroxylation of

coniferyl aldehyde to hydroxyconiferyl aldehyde, which is methylated to sinapyl aldehyde and finally

dehydrogenated by CAD to sinapyl alcohol, the monomer for S lignin.

The expression of genes for most of the enzymes catalysing specific steps of lignin biosynthesis is

suggested in the grape berry [114], although no experimental evidence is available at cellular or

biochemical levels to support the above hypothesis. Furthermore, no reports are available on the crosslinks

between lignin and polysaccharides in the grape seed secondary CW. In the grape berry pulp vascular

tissue, immunogold labelling localised PAL to primary and secondary CW and 4CL to secondary thick

walls [38]. The authors refer to a previous localisation of PAL to the cytoplasm and organelles, and C4H to

the endoplasmic reticulum. The physiological significance of the compartmentalisation of phenylpropanoid

pathway enzymes is therefore not totally clarified.

So far, only a few transcriptomic analyses of grape berry through Affymetrix Vitis GeneChip genome array

refer the expression of genes for lignin biosynthesis enzymes. One transcript subset includes transcripts

assigned to “phenolic acid” function. Quoting the NCBI GeneBank and Genoscope annotations, it was

possible to establish the correspondence with specific genes coding for lignin biosynthesis enzymes (Table

3). The CCR and the first CAD listed express in ripening grapes eventually due to seed lignification at the

maturation stage; whereas the second listed CAD, expressed in berries at the green stage, could be

associated with xylem vasculature.


Table 3: Correspondence between transcripts related to the grape berry “Phenolic acid metabolism” [114] pool, Unique

Gene in Genoscope and ESTs and Proteins from NCBI GeneBank grape berry libraries.

Families of genes for

lignin biosynthesis

GeneBank

annotation [114]

Genoscope unique gene GeneBank EST GeneBank protein

CCR CF517687 GSVIVP00033763001 CF415449;

CABSAU36

XP_002273454

CAD CF512464 GSVIVP00008719001 CV179328;

CABSAU36

XP_002279832

CAD CF517155 GSVIVP00024587001 BQ798918 XP_002285368

When grape berry mRNA expression profiles were analysed in the skin, pulp and seed tissues [123], two

CCRs showed seed specific expression, one showed skin specific expression and two others were expressed

in the pulp and skin or in the skin and seed. Four CAD isoforms showed preferential accumulation in the

skin or in the skin and pulp, certainly in relation to vascular bundle formation. In a study oriented to

identify genes specifically involved in berry ripening [113], transcripts associated with primary CW were

mostly repressed before veraison and induced onwards, while a number of secondary metabolism genes

were repressed BV but a higher number was induced PV. This category included genes of the

phenylpropanoid pathway. The authors interpret the pattern of expression of one 4CL isoform, negatively

modulated throughout the ripening process, as being involved in lignin biosynthesis, while a second 4CL

isoform, positively modulated throughout the whole period of berry development and ripening, would be

involved in the anthocyanin pathway.

ABBREVIATIONS

4CL = 4-coumarate:CoA ligase

AFase = !-L-arabinofuranosidase

AGA = Apiogalacturonan

AG-I = Arabinogalactan-I

AG-II = Arabinogalactan-II

AGP = Arabinogalactan protein

BV = Before veraison

C3H = Coumarate 3-hydroxylase

C4H = Cinnamate 4-hydroxylase

CAD = Cinnamyl alcohol dehydrogenase

CCR = Cinnamoyl-CoA reductase

CesA = Cellulose synthase

CW = Cell wall

EGase = -1,4-endoglucanase


EST = Expressed Sequence Tags

F5H = Ferulate 5-hydroxylase

Galpa = !-D-galactosyluronic acid

GRP = Glycine-rich proteins

HCT = Hydroxycinnamoyl-CoA shikimate/quinate hydroxycinnamoyl transferase

HG = Homogalacturonan

PA = proanthocyanidin

PAE = Pectin acetylesterase

PAL = Phenylalanine ammonia lyase

PG = Polygalacturonase

PGA = Polygalacturonic acid

PL = Pectate lyase

PME = Pectin methylesterase

PMEI = Pectin methylesterase/nvertase inhibitor

PRP = Proline-rich proteins

PV = Post-Veraison

RG-I = Rhamnogalacturonan-I

RG-II = Rhamnogalacturonan-II

UA = Uronic acid

V = Veraison

XG = Xyloglucan

XGA = Xylogalacturonan

XTH = Xyloglucan endotransglucosylase/hydrolase

Xyl = Xylosidase

Xyn = Xylanase

-Gal = -galactosidase


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

JCF and PL are awarded respectively the PhD grant SFRH/BD/64047/2009 and the annual grant for

integration in research FCT/CBAA/BII-7-2009/2010. IICT is funded by MCTES and CBAA by the FCT

“Plurianual” Programme.

REFERENCES

[1] Brett C, Waldron K. Physiology and Biochemistry of Plant Cell Walls. Chapman & Hall, London 1996.

[2] Goulao LF, Almeida DPF, Oliveira CM. Effect of Enzymatic Reactions on Texture of Fruits and Vegetables. In:

Bayindirli A, Ed. Enzymes in Fruit and Vegetable Processing: Chemistry and Engineering Applications. CRC Press

(Taylor & Francis), New York 2010; pp. 72-122.

[3] Pinelo M, Arnous A, Meyer AS. Upgrading of grape skins: Significance of plant cell-wall structural components and

extraction techniques for phenol release. Trends Food Sci Technol 2006; 17(11): 579-90.

[4] Rapport L, Lockwood B. Nutraceuticals (6) Protoanthocyanidins and grape seed extract. Pharm J 2001; 17: 581-4.

[5] Bogs J, Jaffé F W, Takos AM, Walker AR, Robinson SP. The grapevine transcription factor VvMYBPA1 regulates

proanthocyanidin synthesis during fruit development. Plant Physiol 2007; 143(3): 1347-61.

[6] Ortega-Regules A, Romero-Cascales I, Ros-García JM, López-Roca JM, Gómez-Plaza E. A first approach towards

the relationship between grape skin cell-wall composition and anthocyanin extractability. Anal Chimica Acta 2006;

563(1-2): 26-32.

[7] Jaillon O, Aury J-M, Noel B, et al. The grapevine genome sequence suggests ancestral hexaploidization in major

angiosperm phyla. Nature 2007; 449(7161): 463-7.

[8] Velasco R, Zharkikh A, Troggio M, et al. A high quality draft consensus sequence of the genome of a heterozygous

grapevine variety. PLoS ONE 2007; 2(12): e1326.

[9] Carpita NC, Gibeaut DM. Structural models of primary cell walls in flowering plants: consistency of molecular

structure with the physical properties of the walls during growth. Plant J 1993; 3(1): 1-30.

[10] McNeil M, Darvill AG, Fry SC, PA. Structure and function of the primary cell walls of plants. Annu Rev Biochem

1984; 53: 652-83.

[11] Hayashi T. Xyloglucans in the primary cell wall. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 1989; 40(1): 139-68.

[12] Ordaz-Ortiz JJ, Marcus SE, Knox JP. Cell wall microstructure analysis implicates hemicellulose polysaccharides in

cell adhesion in tomato fruit pericarp parenchyma. Mol Plant 2009; 2(5): 910-21.

[13] Voragen AGJ, Pilnik W, Thibault J-F, Axelos MAV, Renard CMGC. Pectins. In: Stephen AM, Ed. Food

polysaccharides and their applications. Marcel Dekker, New York 1995; pp. 287-339.

[14] Thibault J-F, Renard CMGC, Axelos MAV, Roger P, Crépeau M-J. Studies of the length of homogalacturonic

regions in pectins by acid hydrolysis. Carbohydrate Res 1993; 238: 271-86.

[15] Seymour GB, Colquhoun IJ, Dupont MS, Parsley KR, Selvendran R. Composition and structural features of cell wall

polysaccharides from tomato fruits. Phytochemistry 1990; 29(3): 725-31.

[16] Muda P, Seymour GB, Errington N, Tucker GA. Compositional changes in cell wall polymers during mango fruit

ripening. Carbohydrate Polym 1995; 26(4): 255-60.

[17] Liners F, Letesson JJ, Didembourg C, Van Cutsem P. Monoclonal antibodies against pectin: Recognition of a

conformation induced by calcium. Plant Physiol 1989; 91(4): 1419-24.

[18] Goulao LF. Pectin de-esterification and fruit softening: revisiting a classical hypothesis. Stewart Postharvest Rev

[Online] 2010; 6: 1-12.

[19] Albersheim P, Darvill AG, O’Neill MA, Schols HA, Voragen AGJ. In Pectins and pectinases, Visser J, Voragen

AGJ, Eds. Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, 1996; pp. 47-56.

[20] Caffall KH, Mohnen D. The structure, function, and biosynthesis of plant cell wall pectic polysaccharides.

Carbohydrate Res 2009; 344(14): 1879-900.

[21] Voragen A, Coenen G-J, Verhoef R, Schols H. Pectin, a versatile polysaccharide present in plant cell walls. Struct

Chem 2009; 20(2): 263-75.

[22] Kobayashi M, Nakagawa H, Asaka T, Matoh T. Borate-rhamnogalacturonan II bonding reinforced by Ca2+ retains

pectic polysaccharides in higher-plant cell walls. Plant Physiol 1999; 119(1): 199-204.

[23] Ishii T, Matsunaga T, Pellerin P, O'Neill MA, Darvill A, Albersheim P. The plant cell wall polysaccharide

rhamnogalacturonan II self-assembles into a covalently cross-linked dimer. J Biol Chem 1999; 274(19): 13098-104.

[24] O'Neill MA, Ishii T, Albersheim P, Darvill AG. Rhamnogalacturonan II: structure and function of a borate cross-

linked cell wall pectic polysaccharide. Annu Rev Plant Biol 2004; 55: 109-39.


[25] Ridley BL, O'Neill MA, Mohnen D. Pectins: structure, biosynthesis, and oligogalacturonide-related. signaling

Phytochemistry 2001; 57(6): 929-67.

[26] Vincken J, Schols HA, Oomen RJ, et al. If homogalacturonan were a side chain of rhamnogalacturonan I.

implications for cell wall architecture. Plant Physiol 2003; 132(4): 1781-9.

[27] Coenen GJ, Bakx EJ, Verhoef RP, Schols HA, Voragen AGJ. Identification of the connecting linkage between homo-

or xylogalacturonan and rhamnogalacturonan type I. Carbohydrate Polym 2007; 70(2): 224-35.

[28] O'Neill MA, York WS. The composition and structure of plant primary cell walls. In The Plant Cell Wall, Rose JKC,

Ed. Blackwell Publishing, New York 2003; pp. 1-54.

[29] Showalter AM. Structure and function of plant cell wall proteins. Plant Cell 1993; 5(1): 9-23.

[30] Mort AJ, Lamport DTA. Anhydrous hydrogen-fluoride deglycosylates glycoproteins. Anal Biochem 1977; 82(2):

289-309.

[31] Majewska-Sawka A, Nothnagel EA. The multiple roles of arabinogalactan proteins in plant development. Plant

Physiol 2000; 122(1): 3-10.

[32] Donaldson LA. Lignification and lignin topochemistry - an ultrastructural view. Phytochemistry 2001; 57(6): 859-73.

[33] Cadot Y, Miñana-Castelló MT, Chevalier M. Anatomical, histological, and histochemical changes in grape seeds

from Vitis vinifera L. cv Cabernet franc during fruit development. J Agric Food Chem 2006; 54(24): 9206-15.

[34] Bonawitz ND, Chapple C. The genetics of lignin biosynthesis: connecting genotype to phenotype. Annu Rev Genet

2010; 44: 337-63.

[35] Boerjan W, Ralph J, Baucher M. Lignin biosynthesis. Annu Rev Plant Biol 2003; 54: 519-46.

[36] Vanholme R, Morreel K, Ralph J, Boerjan W. Lignin engineering. Curr Op Plant Biol 2008; 11(3): 278-85.

[37] Vanholme R, Demedts B, Morreel K, Ralph J, Boerjan W. Lignin biosynthesis and structure. Plant Physiol 2010;

153(3): 895-905.

[38] Chen J-Y, Wen P-F, Kong W-F, Pan Q-H, Wan S-B, Huang W-D. Changes and subcellular localizations of the

enzymes involved in phenylpropanoid metabolism during grape berry development. J Plant Physiol 2006; 163(2):

115-27.

[39] Goujon T, Sibout R, Eudes A, MacKay J, Jouanin L. Genes involved in the biosynthesis of lignin precursors in

Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Physiol Biochem 2003; 41(8): 677-87.

[40] Stewart JJ, Akiyama T, Chapple C, Ralph J, Mansfield SD. The effects on lignin structure of overexpression of

ferulate 5-hydroxylase in hybrid poplar. Plant Physiol 2009; 150(2): 621-35.

[41] Fry SC. The structure and functions of xyloglucan. J Exp Bot 1989; 40: 1-11.

[42] Bootten TJ, Harris PJ, Melton LD, Newman RH. Solid-state 13C-NMR spectroscopy shows that the xyloglucans in

the primary cell walls of mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) occur in different domains: a new model for xyloglucan-

cellulose interactions in the cell wall. J Exp Bot 2004; 55: 571-83.

[43] Hanus J, Mazeau K. The xyloglucan-cellulose assembly at the atomic scale. Biopolymers 2006; 82(1): 59-73.

[44] Bootten TJ, Harris PJ, Melton LD, Newman RH. Solid-state 13C NMR study of a composite of tobacco xyloglucan

and Gluconacetobacter xylinus cellulose: molecular interactions between the component polysaccharides.

Biomacromolec 2009; 10(11): 2961-7.

[45] Cosgrove DJ. Wall structure and wall loosening. A look backwards and forwards. Plant Physiol 2001; 125(1): 131-4.

[46] Oechslin R, Lutz MV, Amadò R. Pectic substances isolated from apple cellulosic residue: structural characterisation

of a new type of rhamnogalacturonan I. Carbohydrate Polym 2003; 51(3): 301-10.

[47] Vignon MR, Heux L, Malainine ME, Mahrouz M. Arabinan-cellulose composite in Opuntia ficus-indica prickly pear

spines. Carbohydrate Res 2004; 339(1): 123-31.

[48] Zykwinska AW, Ralet MCJ, Garnier CD, Thibault JFJ. Evidence for in vitro binding of pectin side chains to

cellulose. Plant Physiol 2005; 139(1): 397-407.

[49] Zykwinska A, Rondeau-Mouro C, Garnier C, Thibault J-F, Ralet M-C. Alkaline extractability of pectic arabinan and

galactan and their mobility in sugar beet and potato cell walls. Carbohydrate Polym 2006; 65(4): 510-20.

[50] Zykwinska A, Gaillard C, Buléon A, Pontoire B, Garnier C, Thibault J-F, Ralet M-C. Assessment of in vitro binding

of isolated pectic domains to cellulose by adsorption isotherms, electron microscopy, and X-ray diffraction methods.

Biomacromolec 2006; 8(1): 223-32.

[51] Zykwinska A, Thibault JF, Ralet MC. Organization of pectic arabinan and galactan side chains in association with

cellulose microfibrils in primary cell walls and related models envisaged. J Exp Bot 2007; 58: 1795-802.

[52] Femenia A, Rigby NM, Selvendran RR, Waldron KW. Investigation of the occurrence of pectic-xylan-xyloglucan

complexes in the cell walls of cauliflower stem tissues. Carbohydrate Polym 1999; 39(2): 151-64.


[53] Abdel-Massih R, Baydoun E, Brett C. In vitro biosynthesis of 1,4-ß-galactan attached to a pectin-xyloglucan complex

in pea. Planta 2003; 216(3): 502-11.

[54] Cumming C, Rizkallah H, McKendrick K, Abdel-Massih R, Baydoun E, Brett C. Biosynthesis and cell-wall

deposition of a pectin-xyloglucan complex in pea. Planta 2005; 222(3): 546-55.

[55] Popper ZA, Fry SC. Widespread occurrence of a covalent linkage between xyloglucan and acidic polysaccharides in

suspension-cultured angiosperm cells. Ann Bot 2005; 96(1): 91-9.

[56] Popper Z, Fry S. Xyloglucan"pectin linkages are formed intra-protoplasmically, contribute to wall-assembly, and

remain stable in the cell wall. Planta 2008; 227(4): 781-94.

[57] Marcus SE, Verhertbruggen Y, Hervé C, et al. Pectic homogalacturonan masks abundant sets of xyloglucan epitopes

in plant cell walls. BMC Plant Biol 2008; 8: 60.

[58] Vissenberg K, Martinez-Vilchez IM, Verbelen JP, Miller JG, Fry SC. In vivo colocalization of xyloglucan

endotransglycosylase activity and its donor substrate in the elongationzone of Arabidopsis roots. Plant Cell 2000;

12(7): 1229-38.

[59] McCartney L, Steele-King CG, Jordan E, Knox JP. Cell wall pectic (1#4)- -D-galactan marks the acceleration of

cell elongation in the Arabidopsis seedling root meristem. Plant J 2003; 33(3): 447-54.

[60] Ha M-A, Viëtor RJ, Jardine GD, Apperley D C, Jarvis MC. Conformation and mobility of the arabinan and galactan

side-chains of pectin. Phytochemistry 2005; 66(15): 1817-24.

[61] Jarvis MC. Plant cell walls: Supramolecular assemblies. Food Hydrocol 2011; 25(2): 257-62.

[62] Gorshkova T, Mikshina P, Gurjanov O, Chemikosova S. Formation of plant cell wall supramolecular structure.

Biochemistry (Moscow) 2010; 75(2): 159-72.

[63] Scheller HV, Ulvskov P. Hemicelluloses. Annu Rev Plant Biol 2010; 61: 263-89.

[64] Nunan KJ, Sims IM, Bacic A, Robinson SP, Fincher GB. Isolation and characterization of cell walls from the

mesocarp of mature grape berries (Vitis vinifera). Planta 1997; 203(1): 93-100.

[65] Vidal S, Williams P, O'Neill MA, Pellerin P. Polysaccharides from grape berry cell walls. Part I: tissue distribution

and structural characterization of the pectic polysaccharides. Carbohydrate Polym 2001; 45(4): 315-23.

[66] Hardie WJ, O'Brien TP, Jaudzems VG. Morphology, anatomy and development of the pericarp after anthesis in

grape, Vitis vinifera L. Aust J Grape Wine Res 1996; 2(2): 97-142.

[67] Lecas M, Brillouet J-M. Cell wall composition of grape berry skins. Phytochemistry 1994; 35(5): 1241-3.

[68] Saulnier L, Thibault J-F. Enzymic degradation of isolated pectic substances and cell wall from pulp of grape berries.

Carbohydrate Polym 1987; 7(5): 345-60.

[69] Bindon KA, Smith PA, Holt H, Kennedy JA. Interaction between grape-derived proanthocyanidins and cell wall

material. 2. Implications for vinification J Agri Food Chem 2010; 58(19): 10736-46.

[70] Hilz H. Characterisation of cell wall polysaccharides in bilberries and black currants. PhD Thesis, U. Wageningeng:

Wageningen, NL, 2007; p. 158.

[71] Doco T, Williams P, Pauly M, O'Neill MA, Pellerin P. Polysaccharides from grape berry cell walls. Part II. Structural

characterization of the xyloglucan polysaccharides. Carbohydrate Polym 2003; 53(3): 253-261.

[72] Arnous A, Meyer A. Grape skins (Vitis vinifera L.) catalyze the in vitro enzymatic hydroxylation of p-coumaric acid

to caffeic acid. Biotech Lett 2009; 31(12): 1953-60.

[73] Fry SC, York WS, Albersheim P, et al. An unambiguous nomenclature for xyloglucan-derived oligosaccharides.

Physiol Plant 1993; 89(1): 1-3.

[74] Nunan KJ, Sims IM, Bacic A, Robinson SP, Fincher GB. Changes in cell wall composition during ripening of grape

berries. Plant Physiol 1998; 118(3): 783-92.

[75] Gross KC, Sams CE. Changes in cell wall neutral sugar composition during fruit ripening: a species survey.

Phytochemistry 1984; 23(11): 2457-61.

[76] Brummell DA. Cell wall disassembly in ripening fruit. Funct Plant Biol 2006; 33: 103-19.

[77] Goulao LF, Oliveira CM. Cell wall modifications during fruit ripening: when a fruit is not the fruit. Trends Food Sci

Technol 2008; 19(1): 4-25.

[78] Zhang DP, Li M, Wang Y. Ultrastructural changes in the mesocarp cells of grape berry during its development. Acta

Botanica Sinica 1997; 39: 389-96.

[79] Liners F, Van Cutsem P. Distribution of pectic polysaccharides throughout walls of suspension-cultured carrot cells.

Protoplasma 1992; 170(1): 10-21.

[80] Fougère-Rifot M, Cholet C, Bouard J. Evolution des parois des cellules de l'hypoderme de la baie de raisin lors de

leur transformation en cellules de pulpe. J Int Sci Vigne Vin 1996; 30: 47-51.


[81] Barnavon L, Doco T, Terrier N, Ageorges A, Romieu C, Pellerin P. Involvement of pectin methyl-esterase during the

ripening of grape berries: partial cDNA isolation, transcript expression and changes in the degree of methyl-

esterification of cell wall pectins. Phytochemistry 2001; 58(5): 693-701.

[82] Barnavon L, Doco T, Terrier N, Ageorges A, Romieu C, Pellerin P. Analysis of cell wall neutral sugar composition,

beta-galactosidase activity and a related cDNA clone throughout the development of Vitis vinifera grape berries.

Plant Physiol Biochem 2000; 38: 289-300.

[83] Ortega-Regules A, Ros-García JM, Bautista-Ortín AB, López-Roca JM, Gómez-Plaza E. Changes in skin cell wall

composition during the maturation of four premium wine grape varieties. J Sci Food Agric 2008; 88: 420-8.

[84] Silacci MC, Morrison JC. Changes in pectin content of Cabernet Saubignon grape berries during maturation. Am J

Enol Vitic 1990; 41: 111-5.

[85] Yakushiji H, Sakurai N, Morinaga K. Changes in cell-wall polysaccharides from the mesocarp of grape berries

during veraison. Physiol Plantarum 2001; 111(2): 188-95.

[86] Grignon C, Sentenac H. pH and ionic conditions in the apoplast. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 1991; 42:

103-28.

[87] Nunan K, Davies C, Robinson S, Fincher G. Expression patterns of cell wall-modifying enzymes during grape berry

development. Planta 2001; 214(2): 257-64.

[88] Huang X-M, Huang H-B, Wang H-C. Cell walls of loosening skin in post-veraison grape berries lose structural

polysaccharides and calcium while accumulate structural proteins. Sci Hortic 2005; 104(3): 249-63.

[89] Vicens A, Fournand D, Williams P, Sidhoum L, Moutounet M, Doco T. Changes in polysaccharide and protein

composition of cell walls in grape berry skin (cv. Shiraz) during ripening and over-ripening J Agric Food Chem 2009;

57(7): 2955-60.

[90] Matthews MA, Cheng G, Weinbaum SA. Changes in water potential and dermal extensibility during grape berry

development. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 1987; 112: 314-9.

[91] Huang X-M, Huang H-B. Early post-veraison growth in grapes: evidence for a two-step mode of berry enlargement.

Aust J Grape Wine Res 2001; 7(3): 132-6.

[92] Schlosser J, Olsson N, Weis M, et al. Cellular expansion and gene expression in the developing grape (Vitis vinifera

L.). Protoplasma 2008; 232(3): 255-65.

[93] Bondada BR, Matthews MA, Shackel KA. Functional xylem in the post-veraison grape berry. J Exp Bot 2005;

56(421): 2949-57.

[94] Morales M, Pedreño MA, Muñoz R, Barceló AR, Calderón AA. Purification and kinetic characterization of a basic

peroxidase isoenzyme responsible for lignification in Gamay rouge grape (Vitis vinifera) berries. Food Chem 1993;

48(4): 391-4.

[95] Moldes D, Gallego PP, Rodríguez Couto S, Sanromán A. Grape seeds: the best lignocellulosic waste to produce

laccase by solid state cultures of Trametes hirsuta. Biotechnol Lett 2003; 25(6): 491-5.

[96] Ristic R, Iland PG. Relationships between seed and berry development of Vitis Vinifera L. cv Shiraz: Developmental

changes in seed morphology and phenolic composition. Aust J Grape Wine Res 2005; 11(1): 43-58.

[97] Hanlin RL, Hrmova M, Harbertson JF, Downey MO. Condensed tannin and grape cell wall interactions and their

impact on tannin extractability into wine. Aust J Grape Wine Res 2010; 16(1): 173-88.

[98] Kennedy J. Understanding grape berry development. Practical Winery and Vineyard [Online], 2002.

[99] Kennedy JA, Hayasaka Y, Vidal S, Waters EJ, Jones GP. Composition of grape skin proanthocyanidins at different

stages of berry development. J Agric Food Chem 2001; 49(11): 5348-55.

[100] Río Segade S, Rolle L, Gerbi V, Orriols I. Phenolic ripeness assessment of grape skin by texture analysis. J Food

Compos Anal 2008; 21(8): 644-9.

[101] Fischer RL, Bennett AB. Role of cell-wall hydrolases in fruit ripening. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 1991;

42: 675-703.

[102] Hadfield KA, Bennett AB. Polygalacturonases: many genes in search of a function. Plant Physiol 1998; 117(2): 337-

43.

[103] Seymour GB, Gross KC. Cell wall disassembly and fruit softening. Postharvest News and Information 1996; 7: 45N-

52N.

[104] Hayashi T, Takeda T, Ogawa K, Mitsuishi Y. Effects of the degree of polymerization on the binding of xyloglucans

to cellulose. Plant Cell Physiol 1994; 35(6): 893-9.

[105] Mitcham EJ, Gross KC, Ng TJ. Tomato fruit cell wall synthesis during development and senescence 1: In vivo

radiolabeling of wall fractions using [14C] sucrose. Plant Physiol 1989; 89(2): 477-81.


[106] Greve LC, Labavitch JM. Cell wall metabolism in ripening fruit 1: V. Analysis of cell wall synthesis in ripening

tomato pericarp tissue using a d-[U-13C]glucose tracer and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Plant Physiol

1991; 97(4): 1456-61.

[107] Jansson S, Douglas CJ. Populus: a model system for plant biology. Annu Rev Plant Biol 2007; 58: 435-58.

[108] Page RD. TreeView: an application to display phylogenetic trees on personal computers. Comput Appl Biosci 1996;

12(4): 357-8.

[109] Ishimaru M, Kobayashi S. Expression of a xyloglucan endo-transglycosylase gene is closely related to grape berry

softening. Plant Sci 2002; 162(4): 621-8.

[110] Ishimaru M, Smith DL, Gross KC, Kobayashi S. Expression of three expansin genes during development and

maturation of Kyoho grape berries. J Plant Physiol 2007; 164(12): 1675-82.

[111] Goulao LF, Santos J, de Sousa I, Oliveira CM. Patterns of enzymatic activity of cell wall-modifying enzymes during

growth and ripening of apples. Postharvest Biol Technol 2007; 43(3): 307-18.

[112] Goulao LF, Cosgrove DJ, Oliveira CM. Cloning, characterisation and expression analyses of cDNA clones encoding

cell wall-modifying enzymes isolated from ripe apples. Postharvest Biol Technol 2008; 48(1): 37-51.

[113] Pilati S, Perazzolli M, Malossini A, et al. Genome-wide transcriptional analysis of grapevine berry ripening reveals a

set of genes similarly modulated during three seasons and the occurrence of an oxidative burst at vèraison. BMC

Genom 2007; 8: 428.

[114] Deluc LG, Grimplet J, Wheatley MD, et al. Transcriptomic and metabolite analyses of Cabernet Sauvignon grape

berry development. BMC Genom 2007; 8: 429.

[115] Chervin C, Tira-umphon A, Terrier N, Zouine M, Severac D, Roustan J-P. Stimulation of the grape berry expansion

by ethylene and effects on related gene transcripts, over the ripening phase. Physiol Plantarum 2008; 134(3): 534-46.

[116] Grimplet J, Deluc L, Tillett R, et al. Tissue-specific mRNA expression profiling in grape berry tissues. BMC Genom

2007; 8(1): 187.

[117] Terrier N, Glissant D, Grimplet J, et al. Isogene specific oligo arrays reveal multifaceted changes in gene expression

during grape berry (Vitis vinifera L.) development. Planta 2005; 222(5): 832-47.

[118] Silva F, Iandolino A, Al-Kayal F, et al. Characterizing the grape transcriptome. Analysis of Expressed Sequence Tags

from multiple Vitis species and development of a compendium of gene expression during berry development. Plant

Physiol 2005; 139(2): 574-97.

[119] Terrier N, Ageorges A, Abbal P, Romieu C. Generation of ESTs from grape berry at various developmental stages. J

Plant Physiol 2001; 158(12): 1575-83.

[120] Koyama K, Sadamatsu K, Goto-Yamamoto N. Abscisic acid stimulatedripening and gene expression in berry skins of

the Cabernet Sauvignon grape. Funct Integr Genom 2010; 10(3): 367-281.

[121] Peng FY, Reid KE, Liao N, et al. Generation of ESTs in Vitis vinifera wine grape (Cabernet Sauvignon) and table

grape (Muscat Hamburg) and discovery of new candidate genes with potential roles in berry development. Gene

2007; 402(1-2): 40-50.

[122] Raes J, Rohde A, Christensen JH, Van de Peer Y, Boerjan W. Genome-wide characterization of the lignification

toolbox in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 2003; 133(3): 1051-71.

[123] Deluc L, Barrieu F, Marchive C, et al. Characterization of a grapevine R2R3-MYB transcription factor that regulates

the phenylpropanoid pathway. Plant Physiol 2006; 140(2): 499-511.

tackling the cell wall of the grape berry

Documents